Quality verses Quantity

On all console generations previous to the current, you would consistently see release dates get pushed back in order to release a polished game. Presently, we have situations like the launch of Diablo III where Blizzard, the developer, made promises of a real-money auction house and PvP (player vs. player) at launch but instead “angered many after it was forced to take down the game’s servers for maintenance the day of the launch” (Hachman, M. 2012, pg. 1) causing additional delays in PvP and the real-money auction house to hastily create as much revenue as they can instead of taking their time and releasing a quality game. Currently, PvP has not been added. Some games will even go as far as to use DLC (downloadable content) as a method by which to complete a game, such as Mass Effect 3. It’s ending angered players to the point where a complaint was filed through the Federal Trade Commission claiming the ending was false advertisement. Additionally, there was controversy around DLC being “intentionally removed from the game for financial gain.” (Albanesius, C., 2012, pg. 1)

Developers and publishers need to go back to the prior planning methods that allowed additional time for the finalization process of game development. Before the launch of the current generation of consoles, the industry was not able to use online functionality as a means by which to update and change a game that had already been released. Because there was no going back once the game was released, the previous planning methods required a lot more time carefully planning, which allowed a higher allotment of time to execute the testing and polishing phases. Over the course of the years the graphics, storylines, and creative design process has evolved and improved but the finalization process has not been expanded to match. There’s less time spent on identifying and resolving game design flaws. The story and the graphics are important components to any game, however it is equally important the game does not have so many flaws, bugs, or glitches that it then becomes unplayable. With the increasing complexity of designing today’s games, gamers recognize not every design flaw can be located in quality assurance, regardless of the allotted time, however expanding the process back to a longer, more adequate time period will allow more corrections to be made and could contain some potential future issues. There’s no specific amount of time to suggest, the creative process should never be rushed, but whenever the game feels polished, meaning it’s completed with minimal flaws and ready to be launched, is when it should be launched.

With the WiiU being recently released, the next generation of consoles is about a year away. The gaming industry should wipe the slate clean and use this next generation to implement these better execution methods, which were used prior to the crutch of online features. If the industry as a whole shifted back to this method, there would be a more dedicated fan base resulting in a longer lasting title on the market, which would allow for a higher profit margin. Since the finalization process would be expanded to allow more time to be completed, it could result in fewer games being released in a year, which some larger publishers may not appreciate. It could also make annual release games, like Call of Duty, impossible but there’s ways to counteract this through the fans. If the developer had more open beta testing involving the public, it would provide a free method to stress test new game engines and expedite the quality assurance process.

References

Hachman, M. (2012). Blizzard Apologizes for 'Diablo III' Bugs, Delays Real-Money Auction House. PC Magazine, 1.

Albanesius, C. (2012). Mass Effect 3 Player Files FTC Complaint Over Game's Ending. PC Magazine, 1.

#opinion #rant